You have a plane and a conveyor belt.

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
I am still getting a zero sum to this question. The plane sits stationary.

Read my last couple posts.

 

[dds14u]

I believe what's confusing about this is the thrust the plane creates. In essence the jets on the plane create their own air flow. However, this air flow is different than a plane in motion (since the conveyer belt holds it still) so the take off would be somewhat awkward. It really depends on the engineering of the airplane.

A good example is to instead picture the jets of an airplane as two large fans blowing at the wings of the fan. If these fans provided enough air flow than due to the engineering of the wings, yes the plane will lift. Whether or not it will be a successful take off is still another question since this airflow is not evenly distributed i.e. the tail stabilizers will not be receiving the air flow that they receive during a normal take off.

Keep in mind that water take offs still require the plan to be traveling forward relative to, let's say its original position at rest.

 

[iamaelephant]

How are you people still not getting this? Seriously. If you honestly think the plane doesn't take off, or if you think the take off has anything to do with the engines blowing air over the wings, you are quite simply too stupid for the internet. Please switch off your computer. I am now officially finished reading this thread.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
The plane increases it's thrust and the wheels begin to rotate. The belt compensates for #1 the forward rotation of the wheels or #2 the forward movement of the plane, as in the belt moves in reverse exactly as fast as condition #1 or #2

And if it matters, it's a nice sunny day and you have good tires, so you get perfect traction on the belt at all times. Your plane also happens to be very powerful and you can give it as much thrust as you like, but the source of thrust is at the back of the plane so it never provides airflow over the wing.

Does the plane take off using #1?
Does the plane take off using #2?

EDITED: There are two interpretations to the question, #1 or #2. It's best you clarify which of the two conditions you have in mind when making your argument. If you're familiar with the original interpretation of the question, it would be #2.

#1 and #2 the plane won't fly. This my visualation; with frictionless bearings in the plane's wheels and in the conveyor's construction. With unlimited acceleration, the wheels and conveyor immediately speed up to light speed, acquire infinite mass, and suck plane, world, and entire solar system into the newly formed BLACK HOLE.

 

[Allio]

You're on a stationary treadmill wearing a pair of roller blades with some kick ass bearings. You're holding a rope attached to the wall on the other side of the room. You can pull yourself along the treadmill to the other side of the room pretty easily using the rope, right?

Now someone turns on the treadmill and your wheels start spinning while you hold on to the rope and stay stationary. Your wheels spin but you're not going anywhere. Now are you idiots seriously trying to tell me that if you pulled on the rope you wouldn't move forward at the same damn speed as you would if the treadmill weren't running? The only difference is that your wheels are getting more of a workout.

Seeing this thread is about forty times as long as it should be it's highly probably that this analogy has already been used but attempting to read the whole thing at this point would be like committing mental suicide

 

[skace]

I come back to this thread not to provide further explanations, but just to get my daily laughs in at the people who still havn't grasped it. I know that is mean, but it is also hillarious. ATOT has always had a problem with people who reply to a thread before reading the contents. It was a major crux of the Skoorb effect. But this thread has owned more "reply first, think much, much later" people than ever before.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Allio
Seeing this thread is about forty times as long as it should be it's highly probably that this analogy has already been used but attempting to read the whole thing at this point would be like committing mental suicide

Rofl that's the best part, that analogy has been used like 10 times and IT DOESN'T SINK IN.

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: Abraxas
Actually, 1 does fit within the laws of physics, though badly. If the wheels are moving the same speed as the plane, then it isn't moving forward at all. If the plane were to be held in place on the conveyor belt, only then would the wheels travel the same speed as the conveyor belt. If it moves forward at all, the wheels must travel the distance they conveyor belt moved backwards in addition to the distance the plane moves forward. In that case, the wheels would cover extra distance in the same amount of time, which means they are moving faster. That means one of four situations are possible.

1. The plane is parked on a stopped conveyor belt, doesn't take off
2. The plane and conveyor belt are moving at such low speed and with such little force that the friction slowing the wheels is equal to the thrust put out by the plane, still not enough to take off.
3. The conveyor belt reaches such high speed trying to compensate for the wheel speed, which it can never actually reach, that the plane bursts into flames from all the friction heat and disintigrates, thus not taking off.
4. Assuming both plane and conveyor belt are essentially immune to heat, the conveyor belt reaches infinite speed trying to compensate for the infinite speed of the wheels, which it can still never reach, collapses into a black hole or releases infinite amounts of energy destroying the universe, and the plane still never takes off.

Condition 1 is just stupid.

YES.

I thought this thread would have been over 100 posts ago, and I have a feeling that the two conditions have been swapped somewhere along the line here.

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: skace
I come back to this thread not to provide further explanations, but just to get my daily laughs in at the people who still havn't grasped it. I know that is mean, but it is also hillarious. ATOT has always had a problem with people who reply to a thread before reading the contents. It was a major crux of the Skoorb effect. But this thread has owned more "reply first, think much, much later" people than ever before.

LMAO....

Ahh, yes... the Skoorb effect. I haven't heard that in a while.

 

[hellokeith]

And you just thought this thread was dead..

According to Goodyear Aviation, here are the maximum operating spec's for an airplane tire:

speed rating - http://www.goodyearaviation.com/img/pdf/datatires.pdf
Average is around 225MPH, but I found one that was rated 279MPH.

surface temperature rating - http://www.goodyearaviation.com/img/pdf/engtechinfo.pdf
Max surface temperature is 225F.

A tire fire, and its resulting blowout, will definitely prevent the aircraft from takeoff. If the wheel is going faster than say 325MPH and/or the heat of the friction between tire and belt consistently generates more than 275F, before takeoff speed, then the tires catch on fire and blow out, and the ride is over before the airplane gets into the air.

So can anyone calcuate how fast the wheel is spinning when the aircraft reaches takeoff speed?
Can anyone calculate how much heat is generated by fricition?

 

[BigCoolJesus]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
And you just thought this thread was dead..

According to Goodyear Aviation, here are the maximum operating spec's for an airplane tire:

speed rating - http://www.goodyearaviation.com/img/pdf/datatires.pdf
Average is around 225MPH, but I found one that was rated 279MPH.

surface temperature rating - http://www.goodyearaviation.com/img/pdf/engtechinfo.pdf
Max surface temperature is 225F.

A tire fire, and its resulting blowout, will definitely prevent the aircraft from takeoff. If the wheel is going faster than say 325MPH and/or the heat of the friction between tire and belt consistently generates more than 275F, before takeoff speed, then the tires catch on fire and blow out, and the ride is over before the airplane gets into the air.

So can anyone calcuate how fast the wheel is spinning when the aircraft reaches takeoff speed?
Can anyone calculate how much heat is generated by fricition?

You mean we actually have to do work to figure this out.........we cant just take random stabs at an answer?



Im just razzing you all, ill go hide under a rock now

 

[KingofCamelot]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
And you just thought this thread was dead..

According to Goodyear Aviation, here are the maximum operating spec's for an airplane tire:

speed rating - http://www.goodyearaviation.com/img/pdf/datatires.pdf
Average is around 225MPH, but I found one that was rated 279MPH.

surface temperature rating - http://www.goodyearaviation.com/img/pdf/engtechinfo.pdf
Max surface temperature is 225F.

A tire fire, and its resulting blowout, will definitely prevent the aircraft from takeoff. If the wheel is going faster than say 325MPH and/or the heat of the friction between tire and belt consistently generates more than 275F, before takeoff speed, then the tires catch on fire and blow out, and the ride is over before the airplane gets into the air.

So can anyone calcuate how fast the wheel is spinning when the aircraft reaches takeoff speed?
Can anyone calculate how much heat is generated by fricition?

How about we just put those tires on an old prop plane and have it take off from the conveyor belt? I'm pretty sure a little prop plane isn't going to blow those tires out.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
A tire fire, and its resulting blowout, will definitely prevent the aircraft from takeoff.

No it won't. A jet has enough thrust to take off even if the thing is scraping on the ground.

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: Allio
You're on a stationary treadmill wearing a pair of roller blades with some kick ass bearings. You're holding a rope attached to the wall on the other side of the room. You can pull yourself along the treadmill to the other side of the room pretty easily using the rope, right?

Now someone turns on the treadmill and your wheels start spinning while you hold on to the rope and stay stationary. Your wheels spin but you're not going anywhere. Now are you idiots seriously trying to tell me that if you pulled on the rope you wouldn't move forward at the same damn speed as you would if the treadmill weren't running? The only difference is that your wheels are getting more of a workout.

Seeing this thread is about forty times as long as it should be it's highly probably that this analogy has already been used but attempting to read the whole thing at this point would be like committing mental suicide

Even if this were quoted and at the top of every page in the thread these people still wouldn't get it.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
No it won't. A jet has enough thrust to take off even if the thing is scraping on the ground.

The likelihood for steering problems, a nosedive, a slide, debri damage to the underside of the plane, and many other unpredictable things, you will not find a pilot who would try it or an airport which would allow it. Burning vulcanized rubber would likely destroy the fictitious conveyor belt, adding to the already dangerous situation.

The guy above who said prop plane has the right idea. The plane needs to be as light as possible, so that it can achieve airspeed with minimal thrust so the tires aren't spinning fast.

 

[deadken]

So.... Is there any airflow across the wingsurfaces or not? My interpretation is that the conveyor belt soeed is supposed to match the planes speed in order to prevent movement.

If enough airflow is going across the wing surfaces, the plane will take off.

If no airflow is going across the wing surfaces, the plane will not take off.

Man am I lowering my standards to even respond to a thread like this.... 57 pages and I continue to add to it.... Sheesh, I must be tired.

 

[shenjingbing]

I cannot believe how many people think that the plane will take off, it's almost funny. I'm sure some of you are just joking, or are you.

I read the first pages and cannot stop laughing at how something as simple as basic physics are misunderstood.

This point has been mentioned numerous of times before, and that is there has to be LIFT, or wind over the wings for the plane to take off. Regardless how much thrust the engine puts out, and if the conveyor can effectively nullify that thrust, then there are no additional energy generated.

Now for the people that keeps saying that the plane will fly, I have a self powered sail boat with a really large fan on it to sell to you.

 

[FoBoT]

a conveyor cannot nullify the engine thrust through a free spinning wheel

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: shenjingbing
I cannot believe how many people think that the plane will take off, it's almost funny. I'm sure some of you are just joking, or are you.

I read the first pages and cannot stop laughing at how something as simple as basic physics are misunderstood.

This point has been mentioned numerous of times before, and that is there has to be LIFT, or wind over the wings for the plane to take off. Regardless how much thrust the engine puts out, and if the conveyor can effectively nullify that thrust, then there are no additional energy generated.

Now for the people that keeps saying that the plane will fly, I have a self powered sail boat with a really large fan on it to sell to you.

I cannot help but laugh that you don't realize that the conveyor belt DOES NOT negate the thrust. Thus there is movement forward.

We're not arguing that there is no lift. We're arguing that there IS lift, and you don't realize that. No one has said anything about 0 lift + takeoff. We know that's not possible.

For those who think it won't take off, try a small scale demo and you'll know what we mean.

Wheels are free rolling, so the conveyor belt does NOTHING but to spin the wheels. The engines still push the plane forward. THERE IS FORWARD MOTION = THERE IS LIFT. Now shut up.

 

[shenjingbing]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: shenjingbing
I cannot believe how many people think that the plane will take off, it's almost funny. I'm sure some of you are just joking, or are you.

I read the first pages and cannot stop laughing at how something as simple as basic physics are misunderstood.

This point has been mentioned numerous of times before, and that is there has to be LIFT, or wind over the wings for the plane to take off. Regardless how much thrust the engine puts out, and if the conveyor can effectively nullify that thrust, then there are no additional energy generated.

Now for the people that keeps saying that the plane will fly, I have a self powered sail boat with a really large fan on it to sell to you.

I cannot help but laugh that you don't realize that the conveyor belt DOES NOT negate the thrust. Thus there is movement forward.

We're not arguing that there is no lift. We're arguing that there IS lift, and you don't realize that. No one has said anything about 0 lift + takeoff. We know that's not possible.

For those who think it won't take off, try a small scale demo and you'll know what we mean.

Wheels are free rolling, so the conveyor belt does NOTHING but to spin the wheels. The engines still push the plane forward. THERE IS FORWARD MOTION = THERE IS LIFT. Now shut up.

I will shut up, AFTER you can tell me that you feel wind on your face when running really fast on a treadmill.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: shenjingbing

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: shenjingbing
I cannot believe how many people think that the plane will take off, it's almost funny. I'm sure some of you are just joking, or are you.

I read the first pages and cannot stop laughing at how something as simple as basic physics are misunderstood.

This point has been mentioned numerous of times before, and that is there has to be LIFT, or wind over the wings for the plane to take off. Regardless how much thrust the engine puts out, and if the conveyor can effectively nullify that thrust, then there are no additional energy generated.

Now for the people that keeps saying that the plane will fly, I have a self powered sail boat with a really large fan on it to sell to you.

I cannot help but laugh that you don't realize that the conveyor belt DOES NOT negate the thrust. Thus there is movement forward.

We're not arguing that there is no lift. We're arguing that there IS lift, and you don't realize that. No one has said anything about 0 lift + takeoff. We know that's not possible.

For those who think it won't take off, try a small scale demo and you'll know what we mean.

Wheels are free rolling, so the conveyor belt does NOTHING but to spin the wheels. The engines still push the plane forward. THERE IS FORWARD MOTION = THERE IS LIFT. Now shut up.

I will shut up, AFTER you can tell me that you feel wind on your face when running really fast on a treadmill.

So your alias is crazyassmofo in Chinese and you want to tell me you know what you're talking about?

We're talking about wheels, not about feet. You lose.

 

[FoBoT]

airplanes don't have legs, an airplane cannot run on a treadmill
and you don't have a jet engine on you

 

[shenjingbing]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: shenjingbing

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: shenjingbing
I cannot believe how many people think that the plane will take off, it's almost funny. I'm sure some of you are just joking, or are you.

I read the first pages and cannot stop laughing at how something as simple as basic physics are misunderstood.

This point has been mentioned numerous of times before, and that is there has to be LIFT, or wind over the wings for the plane to take off. Regardless how much thrust the engine puts out, and if the conveyor can effectively nullify that thrust, then there are no additional energy generated.

Now for the people that keeps saying that the plane will fly, I have a self powered sail boat with a really large fan on it to sell to you.

I cannot help but laugh that you don't realize that the conveyor belt DOES NOT negate the thrust. Thus there is movement forward.

We're not arguing that there is no lift. We're arguing that there IS lift, and you don't realize that. No one has said anything about 0 lift + takeoff. We know that's not possible.

For those who think it won't take off, try a small scale demo and you'll know what we mean.

Wheels are free rolling, so the conveyor belt does NOTHING but to spin the wheels. The engines still push the plane forward. THERE IS FORWARD MOTION = THERE IS LIFT. Now shut up.

I will shut up, AFTER you can tell me that you feel wind on your face when running really fast on a treadmill.

So your alias is crazyassmofo in Chinese and you want to tell me you know what you're talking about?

We're talking about wheels, not about feet. You lose.

Feel that wind yet? Or is it just hot air?

 

[Glavinsolo]

Originally posted by: shenjingbing

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: shenjingbing
I cannot believe how many people think that the plane will take off, it's almost funny. I'm sure some of you are just joking, or are you.

I read the first pages and cannot stop laughing at how something as simple as basic physics are misunderstood.

This point has been mentioned numerous of times before, and that is there has to be LIFT, or wind over the wings for the plane to take off. Regardless how much thrust the engine puts out, and if the conveyor can effectively nullify that thrust, then there are no additional energy generated.

Now for the people that keeps saying that the plane will fly, I have a self powered sail boat with a really large fan on it to sell to you.

I cannot help but laugh that you don't realize that the conveyor belt DOES NOT negate the thrust. Thus there is movement forward.

We're not arguing that there is no lift. We're arguing that there IS lift, and you don't realize that. No one has said anything about 0 lift + takeoff. We know that's not possible.

For those who think it won't take off, try a small scale demo and you'll know what we mean.

Wheels are free rolling, so the conveyor belt does NOTHING but to spin the wheels. The engines still push the plane forward. THERE IS FORWARD MOTION = THERE IS LIFT. Now shut up.

I will shut up, AFTER you can tell me that you feel wind on your face when running really fast on a treadmill.

Talking about apples and oranges

 

[shenjingbing]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
airplanes don't have legs, an airplane cannot run on a treadmill
and you don't have a jet engine on you

Really? Wow... mind boggling.

We're just asking to simulate a self propelling force against another to render the object immobilize (location wise).

Yes we all understand that there are FORWARD movements, but only in relation to the conveyor. To everything else around it, the object is stationary. No wind, no lift. End of stofy.